737 1000 (No Joke)

higney85 said:
I can't figure out why a 757NG can't be built. New motors, update the avionics to match the 787, call it a day.

Take the 757 type, new avionics, expand the fuselage 12" for more space, stretch it to 757-300 +12'. New (bigger) motors, gear up another few inches and walked back a bit so the tail strike factor isn't a problem. Replace materials with composites when able. Call it the 757NG, 757MAX, whatever. Stop stretching the 737. I like the 737-900 as a pax, as long as I'm not in a middle seat, but the 737 can't replace a 757. Stretch it in both directions, give it the juice and upfront updates, and you now have an aircraft that fits demand.
Click to expand...
The 737 fuselage is the same as the 757, sitting in back is no different.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
The 737 fuselage is the same as the 757, sitting in back is no different.
Click to expand...

And the back of a 737-900 may have cool lighting and tv's, the the back of a 757-300 May really give you the "Mail tube" feel... Both could use some width and space. Sure, it's not a wide body, but the back of a 767 vs a 737/757 is a very different feel, even if the seats are the same. So... If the 73 and 75 share a fuselage (really not surprised if that's the fact, just haven't checked) in stretching the 73. Why not make things a bit wider? Yea, I know, "cost", but for passenger comfort a little more ambient space, maybe even an inch between rows and an inch wider seat, would make the long routes (up to an including crossings) a bit better. With the metallurgy of today, more space and lower weight can be achieved... That was the crux of the 787 sales pitch outside of motors.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but the idea of continually stretching a 737 instead of a 757 rebirth is something I can't grasp. Sure, there are costs in rebuilding a factory line, but there will still be costs in stretching the 737 line. Get the feeling of the 737 program "polishing the turd"... Not saying the 737 isn't great, but sometmes you gotta take a step back to go forward in the idea of growth. With composites, new engine tech, and new avionics/entertainment to seems things are being left on the table. The 707/727 programs are done with engine configuration. The 737 has a healthy order book. The 717 is done, the 737 is alive and well. The 747 has the -8 for cargo, the 767 is focused on cargo, the 777 is getting a 777x treatment, the 787 is the new long-haul on a small scal of the 777. The 797 isn't here, and as I stated, is the end of the line (sarcasm) but not here yet. The 757 was a huge hit between short haul and long haul. One of the few aircraft labeled a workhorse outside of the dc-9 (md-80/88/90/717) variant.

If Boeing is looking at a 225-250 pax option (737-1000) it seems a reset in thought would be worthwhile. They have stretched a dodge caravan to a hotel van, now a short bus, now a full on school bus.... On the same frame. Just my opinion.

The 737-100 showed up for 85 pax, it's now up to 215 pax in the max. The 757 was designed for 200-275.
 
higney85 said:
And the back of a 737-900 may have cool lighting and tv's, the the back of a 757-300 May really give you the "Mail tube" feel... Both could use some width and space. Sure, it's not a wide body, but the back of a 767 vs a 737/757 is a very different feel, even if the seats are the same. So... If the 73 and 75 share a fuselage (really not surprised if that's the fact, just haven't checked) in stretching the 73. Why not make things a bit wider? Yea, I know, "cost", but for passenger comfort a little more ambient space, maybe even an inch between rows and an inch wider seat, would make the long routes (up to an including crossings) a bit better. With the metallurgy of today, more space and lower weight can be achieved... That was the crux of the 787 sales pitch outside of motors.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but the idea of continually stretching a 737 instead of a 757 rebirth is something I can't grasp. Sure, there are costs in rebuilding a factory line, but there will still be costs in stretching the 737 line. Get the feeling of the 737 program "polishing the turd"... Not saying the 737 isn't great, but sometmes you gotta take a step back to go forward in the idea of growth. With composites, new engine tech, and new avionics/entertainment to seems things are being left on the table. The 707/727 programs are done with engine configuration. The 737 has a healthy order book. The 717 is done, the 737 is alive and well. The 747 has the -8 for cargo, the 767 is focused on cargo, the 777 is getting a 777x treatment, the 787 is the new long-haul on a small scal of the 777. The 797 isn't here, and as I stated, is the end of the line (sarcasm) but not here yet. The 757 was a huge hit between short haul and long haul. One of the few aircraft labeled a workhorse outside of the dc-9 (md-80/88/90/717) variant.

If Boeing is looking at a 225-250 pax option (737-1000) it seems a reset in thought would be worthwhile. They have stretched a dodge caravan to a hotel van, now a short bus, now a full on school bus.... On the same frame. Just my opinion.

The 737-100 showed up for 85 pax, it's now up to 215 pax in the max. The 757 was designed for 200-275.
Click to expand...
Ok.

Stretching the existing fuselage is alotttt cheaper than retooling the 757. As @Hacker15e said, if they go that route the might as well design a whole new type. These suggestions you make are not that simple. The 757 is amazing but Boeing messed up big time destroying the tooling and because of that it is highly doubtful that it will come back. Now that the 737 Max has a taller gear they can keep stretching it and besides performance the pax experience is overall the same between the 2.
 
tcco94 said:
Maybe that's what they want...
737derail
Click to expand...
They look like salmon trying to swim up river and spawn.
 
What market is Boeing missing? Nobody gets excited at not rocking the boat - nobody except investors. That being said, what's wrong with the 737? It's the best selling air carrier air frame of all time. With ETOPS it can now fly over water routes, opening near and medium range international opportunities. Certainly it could be made to feel better for pax and crews - much like the 319/20/21, but in terms of route functionality, it's great for airlines.

I guess I'm missing what design Boeing is missing from its fleet? The 787 has filled the 757/767 gap, and the 777 is an excellent air frame. Embraer has a lock on the 100-seat market. What would you prefer they do design wise?
 
Murdoughnut said:
What market is Boeing missing? Nobody gets excited at not rocking the boat - nobody except investors. That being said, what's wrong with the 737? It's the best selling air carrier air frame of all time. With ETOPS it can now fly over water routes, opening near and medium range international opportunities. Certainly it could be made to feel better for pax and crews - much like the 319/20/21, but in terms of route functionality, it's great for airlines.

I guess I'm missing what design Boeing is missing from its fleet? The 787 has filled the 757/767 gap, and the 777 is an excellent air frame. Embraer has a lock on the 100-seat market. What would you prefer they do design wise?
Click to expand...

This is all conjecture. Just think a 757 retool would be better now and into the future, but I don't work for Boeing nor do I hold BA stock anymore. So it's only a personal opinion.


Just have to be on record saying the 757 is a sexy lady. 757-200 with the winglets.... Beautiful!
 
higney85 said:
This is all conjecture. Just think a 757 retool would be better now and into the future, but I don't work for Boeing nor do I hold BA stock anymore. So it's only a personal opinion.


Just have to be on record saying the 757 is a sexy lady. 757-200 with the winglets.... Beautiful!
Click to expand...

As others have said, the tooling and jigs were destroyed, and the drawings were probably destroyed too. The FAA would consider it a new type to try and replicate everything. Might as well do a clean sheet design since it would cost the same.
 
Cptnchia said:
As others have said, the tooling and jigs were destroyed, and the drawings were probably destroyed too. The FAA would consider it a new type to try and replicate everything. Might as well do a clean sheet design since it would cost the same.
Click to expand...

Let's call it... Wait for it.... The 797
 
Cptnchia said:
As others have said, the tooling and jigs were destroyed, and the drawings were probably destroyed too. The FAA would consider it a new type to try and replicate everything. Might as well do a clean sheet design since it would cost the same.
Click to expand...
Holy cow! Innovation in a sector that isn't an RJ!
 
Cptnchia said:
As others have said, the tooling and jigs were destroyed, and the drawings were probably destroyed too. The FAA would consider it a new type to try and replicate everything. Might as well do a clean sheet design since it would cost the same.
Click to expand...

Or, as unpopular as it is, they might as well evaluate the cost impact of redesigning the gear on the 737 line. It's a delicate balance of risk/reward - after the 787, A380, and now CSeries debacles, I don't know how much appetite the OEMs have for clean sheets.

Truth be told, I'm not sure the 737 wing needs that much of a makeover -- it's wing loading (MTOW/wing area) is low enough that you may be able to stretch the frame a bit more and add some weight, while the aspect ratio is high enough to make it competitive in the induced drag arena. The 757 probably had too large of a wing area (+ low aspect ratio) for its own good. The wing area is the true reason for the takeoff/field performance, not necessarily the engines - and it comes at the detriment of fuel burn.

With taller gear the 737 could probably maintain field performance by (1) allowing higher takeoff rotation angles, and (2) hanging larger, even more efficient engines underneath (like the A320neo family). I'm sure there are other nuances that make the gear redesign "easier said than done" though.
 
Ecl!pse said:
Or, as unpopular as it is, they might as well evaluate the cost impact of redesigning the gear on the 737 line. It's a delicate balance of risk/reward - after the 787, A380, and now CSeries debacles, I don't know how much appetite the OEMs have for clean sheets.

Truth be told, I'm not sure the 737 wing needs that much of a makeover -- it's wing loading (MTOW/wing area) is low enough that you may be able to stretch the frame a bit more and add some weight, while the aspect ratio is high enough to make it competitive in the induced drag arena. The 757 probably had too large of a wing area (+ low aspect ratio) for its own good. The wing area is the true reason for the takeoff/field performance, not necessarily the engines - and it comes at the detriment of fuel burn.

With taller gear the 737 could probably maintain field performance by (1) allowing higher takeoff rotation angles, and (2) hanging larger, even more efficient engines underneath (like the A320neo family). I'm sure there are other nuances that make the gear redesign "easier said than done" though.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way to change the main gear design on the 737, dating all the way back to the -200 and the only part of the gear that has been altered has been the nose-gear, right?

I know the 737 is efficient overall from a total purchase/operating cost perspective, but as an airplane, I honestly feel that that airframe should have been scraped after the -400. I haven't been on a MAX yet, but the 900 is still just a -200 with glass. Only TWO hydraulic systems and 2 generators on an airplane re-designed in the 80s, 90s, and 00s? Christ... I'm sure there's many many more systems and airframe design things that are just plain not modern at all with it as well.

The 318, 319, 320, and 321 may not be better, but they seem way less out-dated and doesn't look like as many bandaids have been applied. Speaking ONLY from casual observation and thinking out-loud. I'm sure there's numbers that support other-wise. I just hate the 737 more than just about anything that's ever been in the air. haha

Oh, and it has extra aero-dynamic stuff on it... :) 1900 guys will get the ribbing. :)

757 needs to happen again. :)
 
Cptnchia said:
As others have said, the tooling and jigs were destroyed, and the drawings were probably destroyed too. The FAA would consider it a new type to try and replicate everything. Might as well do a clean sheet design since it would cost the same.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the drawings were destroyed but the real estate that Boeing gave up around Renton was quite a bit. It would be difficult to produce two airframes together again.
 
I hear the drone of the 737-1000 engines are going to make a pleasing "Meeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…" sound as it flies overhead.
 
Derg said:
I hear the drone of the 737-1000 engines are going to make a pleasing "Meeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…" sound as it flies overhead.
Click to expand...
Still not as sexifying as the "Buahhhhhhhhaaaaam" of the 75's (or the L10's) RB-211's.

Pure sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top